Hi Kim, > o LCRR_PDYP, granted dangerous in your case, is obviously a writeable > bit (not read-only), and documented as such in later documentation. In > fact, there are no non-writeable bits in LCRR.
Well, "reserved" != "non-writable" (usually there is a comment that writing reserved bits produces undefined behaviour) so I agree with Heiko that as long the documentation that we have access to, designates bits as reserved, it makes sense to have such a mask. > o the user loses visibility into what is going on if they > decide to drop/add sensitive bits such as LCRR_DBYP in their board's > CONFIG_SYS_LCRR settings, and there's a mask lurking in the background. > > o let's be practical here - in a board port, LCRR settings have to be > paid attention to, no matter what hidden behaviours or new bits there > are lying underneath - perhaps the form of 'protection' you seek is in > the form of a comment in the code? So what is it that you propose? That Heiko uses a LCRR in his board config (over-)writing reserved bits? Cheers Detlev -- vi vi vi - the roman numeral of the beast. -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-40 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: d...@denx.de _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
